REVIEW 2 cited by
The Code Barrier: What LLMs Actually Understand?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Understanding code represents a core ability needed for automating software development tasks. While foundation models like LLMs show impressive results across many software engineering challenges, the extent of their true semantic understanding beyond simple token recognition remains unclear. This research uses code obfuscation as a structured testing framework to evaluate LLMs' semantic understanding capabilities. We methodically apply controlled obfuscation changes to source code and measure comprehension through two complementary tasks: generating accurate descriptions of obfuscated code and performing deobfuscation, a skill with important implications for reverse engineering applications. Our testing approach includes 13 cutting-edge models, covering both code-specialized (e.g., StarCoder2) and general-purpose (e.g., GPT-4o) architectures, evaluated on a benchmark created from CodeNet and consisting of filtered 250 Java programming problems and their solutions. Findings show a statistically significant performance decline as obfuscation complexity increases, with unexpected resilience shown by general-purpose models compared to their code-focused counterparts. While some models successfully identify obfuscation techniques, their ability to reconstruct the underlying program logic remains constrained, suggesting limitations in their semantic representation mechanisms. This research introduces a new evaluation approach for assessing code comprehension in language models and establishes empirical baselines for advancing research in security-critical code analysis applications such as reverse engineering and adversarial code analysis.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Is "Knowing It's Malicious Enough?" Evaluating LLMs for Fine-Grained Malware Behavior Auditing
A new evaluation framework shows current LLMs are not yet reliable at fine-grained Android malware behavior auditing, with the best model scoring 50.67% on the composite workload metric.
-
Using Contrastive Learning to Improve Two-Way Reasoning in Large Language Models: The Obfuscation Task as a Case Study
Contrastive fine-tuning on paired original/obfuscated code improves reverse deobfuscation for variable renaming (39-52% success) where standard fine-tuning gives near 0%, but the broad claim of bidirectional reasoning...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.